I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by this piece platforming @mugecevik who says:
"Foremost, respect other academicians and scientists"
This is how she's respected me, and other scientists 🧵
This was the thread she said was 'cherry picking' to 'tell any story' and an example of 'how not to do scicomm'. You can decide yourself if that comment was fair or respectful:
Often those who talk about 'respect' & 'civility' are the same scientists who attack, and bully others. Muge has bullied me as has @apsmunro. Both have written pieces about respecting others, while engaging in attacking rather than engaging on evidence.
I understand @polkajunction may not be aware of this conduct, but it is painful for victims of her bullying to see her portrayed as a ambassador of respectful discourse in academia, given the impact she's had on many women in science.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, it appears that the private lab which wrongly gave out 43,000 PCR negative results was Immensa, a company with no experience of PCR tested awarded a £119 million contract after only being in existence for 4 months. Corruption costs lives.
Guardian article showing the lab was run by Immensa Health Ltd, the same company mentioned in the Byline Times article above. I'm thoroughly sickened to the core by our government right now:
This gets worse - so the founder of Immensa health is also the founder of Dante labs, now under investigation by the CMA for breaking the law with COVID PCR testing
No. A single intervention that reduces *infection* and transmission by 70%-80% is *highly effective*, even if the protection wanes over time. How can someone in JCVI say vaccines reduce transmission 'poorly'? Vaccines + mitigations are the most effective tools.
Sadly this is down to decisions made by JCVI, and rhetoric put out suggesting it's ok for children to get infected rather than vaccinated. This will have tragic consequences for many families: bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan…
Whitty:"There're certainly some quite significant things we got wrong at the beginning, based on assumption it would be like some previous infections & it turned out not to be, & that's inevitable."
What?
No, it wasn't inevitable, unless you ignored pretty much all the global evidence from SE Asia, and Italy at the time, which it appears govt, and many scientific advisors did. & the voices of many UK scientists shouting from the rooftops that the govt was making a grave error.
Prof Whitty said "zero COVID over this winter is a completely impossible dream", adding the hope was to keep it at "relatively low levels".
'Hope' sadly won't get us to 'relatively low levels' when we have case numbers of 45,000 with rises across all age groups!
We're letting kids down badly. Infection rates in primary and secondary school age children continue to rise, and are the highest across all age groups. Worryingly now there are also rises in all other age groups. Rates >1100/100,000 in 10-19 yr olds & 600/100,000 in 5-9 yrs 🧵
>140,000 10-19 yr olds with *confirmed infection* (likely many more infected) in the past two weeks alone. These kids could've been vaccinated rather than exposed to the risk of long COVID, and serious illness.
This should be a scandal but DfE, govt don't seem to care about what is mass infection in children - very clearly related to school opening, and spread from lack of mitigations in schools. Remember that we no longer have contact tracing and quarantine of contacts in schools.
Hearing many reports of children/adults who've been LFD+ve and PCR -ve for SARS-CoV-2. Given current prevalence the probability of having infection if an LFD test is positive is extremely high - e.g. 97% for adolescents. 🧵
The calculations above outline the overall positive predictive value (chance of actually having infection if one is positive) at a prevalence of 7% (based on ONS prevalence in secondary school children). This shows that with a positive test, probability of infection is 97%
For groups (e.g. adults) where prevalence is lower (~1%), the positive predictive value (PPV) drops but is still pretty high, at 83%. The exact PPV will depend on prevalence of infection which will differ by region and age group, but is generally high at the current time.
I recently did an interview where I was asked to give my opinion on recent changes in UK border policy as an expert. After I did this, the two hosts discussed me, suggesting that I was out of touch, & didn't understand that we need to 'accept' risk.
🧵 on 'accepting' risks.
My opinion was clearly out of vogue in the UK, despite being in line with scientific consensus, because the UK has it's own consensus- not based on science. And scientists can either fall in line with it, or be seen as 'alarmists', out of touch with media/public sentiment.
This is a key reason I don't do media anymore. I've realised that when I'm invited for interviews, it's not because people want my expert opinion. It's because they want a fall guy to present as fringe and extreme, to normalise the dystopia that we live in.